What are your thoughts on downloading copyrighted stuff?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

bands like metallica, grateful dead, van halen, and many other have gained much of their popularity and success through bootleg trading and sales. its a form of exposure and publicity, which comes around and pays off ultimately. im not trying to suggest that the rule always applies, but rather am suggesting that yours doesnt either.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

Originally posted by Schecter
do they speak english in 'what'?

What?

English mother f*cker!

When people just complain about how it's illegal and stealing, it just makes me feel like downloading Metallica just to piss them all off. But, I don't.

I guess there really isn't a need for downloading, but it's obviously nice. But then again, so is a used CD store.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

Intellectual theft is no different to physical theft.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Obviously. 😕

And that seems to be the part you take so much pleasure in. It is obvious. And for some reason, no one does anything. But, I'm guessing you take the most pleasure out of the fact that if the mods paid you any attention, they'd spend all their time deleting your accounts.

clearly he's not whirly. whirly is a bumbling idiot who posts stupid threads.

🙂

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comprable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million tiems with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

You're missing the point... they produced something and they're selling it. Just because a group of 100 people paid them for their "work", it doesn't give another group of 10 the right to take it.

Will the musician suffer horribly because he didn't gain an extra 10% (just a #) profit? No, still doesn't make it right though.

Originally posted by Schecter
bands like metallica, grateful dead, van halen, and many other have gained much of their popularity and success through bootleg trading and sales. its a form of exposure and publicity, which comes around and pays off ultimately. im not trying to suggest that the rule always applies, but rather am suggesting that yours doesnt either.

I'm not sitting here denying that downloading, illegal in this case, has had a positive effect on many bands, only a fool would attempt such a stance.

I just feel that in this day and age where acquiring music simply and legally, cheaply on top of that, is more and more common, people are just more and more lazy.

"I wanna try before I buy!", so listening posts and MySpaces are put to use.

"Stores cost too much.", so iTunes Store is created. Then it's "But I don't trust buying online.".

It just seems to me like most who illegally download just do not want to pay for what they want to own, which is bullshit.

Morally? As long as the music is bought and paid for in the end, I don't have too much of an issue. I think everyone should wait for the proper package, avoid leaks etc, but that's me. Ultimately, as long as it's paid for in the end, I don't care. It's just those people who bother me, the ones that continually make excuses.

Healing Artisan downloads illegally, but owns probably everything he has downloaded and like, legally, through purchase. I saw someone recently at a show buying the artist's CDs. He must have just had downloads or something, but he obviously liked it, showed up to the gig and actually bought the records too.

The easier it's made, the more excuses people make, which is what really does annoy me.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
And that seems to be the part you take so much pleasure in. It is obvious. And for some reason, no one does anything. But, I'm guessing you take the most pleasure out of the fact that if the mods paid you any attention, they'd spend all their time deleting your accounts.

I don't understand.

😕

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not sitting here denying that downloading, illegal in this case, has had a positive effect on many bands, only a fool would attempt such a stance.

I just feel that in this day and age where acquiring music simply and legally, cheaply on top of that, is more and more common, people are just more and more lazy.

"I wanna try before I buy!", so listening posts and MySpaces are put to use.

"Stores cost too much.", so iTunes Store is created. Then it's "But I don't trust buying online.".

It just seems to me like most who illegally download just do not want to pay for what they want to own, which is bullshit.

Morally? As long as the music is bought and paid for in the end, I don't have too much of an issue. I think everyone should wait for the proper package, avoid leaks etc, but that's me. Ultimately, as long as it's paid for in the end, I don't care. It's just those people who bother me, the ones that continually make excuses.

Healing Artisan downloads illegally, but owns probably everything he has downloaded and like, legally, through purchase. I saw someone recently at a show buying the artist's CDs. He must have just had downloads or something, but he obviously liked it, showed up to the gig and actually bought the records too.

The easier it's made, the more excuses people make, which is what really does annoy me.

-AC

That sums up my feelings totally AC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

As I noted above, AC, the car comparison does not work because it quite blatantly is not the same thing- steal a car and the owner cannot use the car anymore. Download a music track and you've not affected anyone's ability to listen the music at all. Again, not to say that that therefore makes it right, but your comparison is poor and attempting to get a message across in that way will never wortk.

Similar to your line "I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance."

The highlighted bit does not work well in a convo about digital piracy.

Worth noting that even a money equivalent value does not work when the property is not physical. You don't prevent the product being sold and there is a good chance that you would not have paid for the product if you were unable to pirate it, hence revenue is not being lost either.

So no-one has lost any product and very often no-one has lost any money. So it's all about the rights of a person to own something, which people really do not see in the same way as stealing a car- no way at all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

It doesn't matter. Not only is it still theft, but you are suggesting they should overlook the fact that they are being stolen from just because they are being enjoyed.

Would you? Forget about what kind of object it is, and answer the question. Would you overlook being stolen from if it meant your work would be enjoyed in the process?

-AC

It very much does matter, I feel, AC. it would be very unlikely to be happy with it iwith the car example. It's entirely possible to be happy with it with a music track, and that has actually happened.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I noted above, AC, the car comparison does not work because it quite blatantly is not the same thing- steal a car and the owner cannot use the car anymore. Download a music track and you've not affected anyone's ability to listen the music at all. Again, not to say that that therefore makes it right, but your comparison is poor and attempting to get a message across in that way will never wortk.

Similar to your line "I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, [b]from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance."

The highlighted bit does not work well in a convo about digital piracy.[/b]

In that case my argument wasn't about the object being stolen, as you singularly failed to see. It was about the ridiculous argument that if your work is being enjoyed, you should overlook being stolen from.

I think we can agree that's quite bullshit.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Worth noting that even a money equivalent value does not work when the property is physical. You don't prevent the product being sold and there is a good chance that you would not have paid for the product if you were unable to pirate it, hence revenue is not being lost either.

So no-one has lost any product and very often no-one has lost any money. So it's all about the rights of a person to own something, which people really do not see in the same way as stealing a car- no way at all.

That wasn't what I was even discussing, if you read it.

I wasn't arguing object vs object, both theft, both different levels of severity, sure. I was arguing the idea that you should be thankful you're being heard even though it's at your own loss.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It very much does matter, I feel, AC. it would be very unlikely to be happy with it iwith the car example. It's entirely possible to be happy with it with a music track, and that has actually happened.

You're not getting it.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. I'm saying his base stance of "You should be happy that you are being appreciated, even though it's through stolen means.", is stupid. As if that retracts from an artist's right to be bothered.

-AC

so what if i download a song to check out a band, come to the conclusion that they suck, and thus never buy the cd? does that mean i am a thief, as opposed to a scenario where i like it and then go out and buy it?

myspace only limits your selection to 4 songs, so thats hardly a reasonable solution imho.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't matter. Not only is it still theft, but you are suggesting they should overlook the fact that they are being stolen from just because they are being enjoyed.

Would you? Forget about what kind of object it is, and answer the question. Would you overlook being stolen from if it meant your work would be enjoyed in the process?

-AC

No.

Forget the enjoyment factor, the two still don't compare.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In that case my argument wasn't about the object being stolen, as you singularly failed to see. It was about the ridiculous argument that if your work is being enjoyed, you should overlook being stolen from.

I think we can agree that's quite bullshit.

-AC

Not really; some people are absolutely fine with that.

I didn't singularly fail to see anything; you singularly failed to make an appropriate argument, is all.

Let's use a rape analogy. If someone steals a girls virginity. It has hurt her badly. She still has her vagina though. Just like downloaded music really.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Let's use a rape analogy. If someone steals a girls virginity. It has hurt her badly. She still has her vagina though. Just like downloaded music really.

Spoiler:
LOL RAPE

AC, you opened by saying that this is 'factually equal to robbing from a store'.

Well, aside from that being simply untrue in just about every possible sense, you are now basing your argument around an artist's right to be bothered.

Really, this just points to your original point not being of great quality.